Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Mediterranean Oak Woodland Working Landscapes pp 353–388Cite as

Economics of Ecosystem Services

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Landscape Series ((LAEC,volume 16))

Abstract

A better appreciation of the value of ecosystem services produced on private lands opens the door to programs that offer incentives to landowners and managers for specific conservation and production practices. This chapter reviews studies of ecosystem services provided by oak woodlands in California and Spain, focusing on those that may be difficult to quantify and value, and therefore are often undervalued in decision-making processes drawing on economic analysis. We first examine how ecosystem services are defined and valued, and then review research done from an economic perspective in California ranch and Spanish dehesa oak woodlands. We conclude with a brief exploration of differences in institutions and policies that bear on oak woodland ecosystem services in these two regions. The next step in ecosystem service valuation and use in policy is to extend case studies and to undertake analyses at the regional, state, and nation-wide scales. Despite scientific advances, the need for preservation of the natural capital of oak woodlands and the many ecosystem services the woodlands provide is far from fully recognized by society. An important future policy task will be incorporating payments for provision of biodiversity and ecosystem services into agricultural, water, energy, and other policies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The RECAMAN project (Valoración de la Renta y el Capital de los Montes de Andalucía) of the Junta de Andalucía, initiated in 2008, is ongoing and applies the Agroforestry Accounting System at the regional scale to measure total income and capital from the montes of Andalucía in Spain.

References

  • Allen-Diaz B, Jackson RD, Bartolome JW, Tate KW, Oates LG (2004) Long-term grazing study in spring-fed wetlands reveals management tradeoffs. Cal Agric 58(3):144–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ARB [Air Resources Board] (2006) California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, California State Assembly Bill 32. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/docs/ab32text.pdf

  • Arriaza Balmón M, González Arenas J, Ruiz Avilés P, Cañas Madueño JA (2002) Determinación del valor de uso de cinco espacios protegidos de Córdoba y Jaén. Rev Esp Estud Agrosoc y Pesq 196:153–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry S (2011) Current findings on grazing impacts: California’s special status species benefit from grazing. Cal Cattlemen June:18–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartolomé-García TJ (1994) Denominaciones de origen y calidad. In: La agricultura y la ganadería extremeñas en 1993: Caja de Extremadura

    Google Scholar 

  • Bean MJ, Wilcove DS (1997) The private-land problem. Cons Biol 11(1):1–2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berbel J, Mesa P (2007) Valoración del agua de riego por el método de precios quasi-hedónicos: aplicación al Guadalquivir. Econ Agrar y Recurs Natur 7(14):127–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger B (2009) What owners want and governments do—evidence from the oregon experiment. Fordham Law Rev 78:1281–1331

    Google Scholar 

  • BOE [Boletín Oficial del Estado] (2003). Ley 43/2003, de 21 de noviembre, de Montes. BOE núm. 280, de 22-11-2003, 41422–41442

    Google Scholar 

  • BOE [Boletín Oficial del Estado] (2007a). Ley 5/2007, de 3 de abril, de la Red de Parques Nacionales. BOE num. 81, de 4 de abril de 2007:14639–14649

    Google Scholar 

  • BOE [Boletín Oficial del Estado] (2007b). Ley 42/2007, de 13 de diciembre, del Patrimonio Natural y de la Biodiversidad. BOE num. 299, de 14 de diciembre de 2007: 51275–51327

    Google Scholar 

  • BOE [Boletín Oficial del Estado] (2010). Real Decreto 1852/2009, de 4 de diciembre, por el que se establecen los criterios para subvencionar los gastos en el marco de los Programas de Desarrollo Rural cofinanciados por el Fondo Europeo Agrícola de Desarrollo Rural (FEADER). BOE num. 1, de 1 de enero de 2010: 3–9

    Google Scholar 

  • BOE [Boletín Oficial del Estado] (2011). Real Decreto 1336/2011, de 3 de octubre, por el que se regula el contrato territorial como instrumento para promover el desarrollo sostenible del medio rural. BOE num. 239, de 4 de octubre de 2011: 104199–104206

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd J (2007) Nonmarket benefits of nature: What should be counted in green GDP? Ecol Econ 61:716–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd J, Banzhaf S (2007) What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ 63:616–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown PL (2001) Goats used in California to prevent brush fires. New York Times 14 Oct, http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/14/us/goats-used-in-california-to-prevent-brush-fires.html. Accessed Sep 2012

  • Byrd KB, Rissman AR, Merenlender AM (2009) Impacts of conservation easements for threat abatement and fire management in a rural oak woodland landscape. Landscape and Urban Plann 92(2):106–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CA-LAO [California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office] (2004) Williamson Act—Subventions for Open Space. Analysis of the Budget Bill–General Government Feb 18. http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/pubdetails.aspx?id=1147 Accessed Dec 2011

  • California Resources Agency (2004) Hearst ranch conservation transaction overall summary, prepared by California State Resources Agency Staff, July 12. http://resources.ca.gov/hearst_docs/overall-transaction-summary-1.pdf Accessed Sep 2012

  • CCX [Chicago Climate Exchange] (2009) Chicago climate exchange sustainably managed rangeland soil carbon sequestration offset project protocol. http://theccx.com/docs/offsets/CCX_Sustainably_Managed_Rangeland_Soil_Carbon_Sequestration_Final.pdf. Accessed Feb 2012

  • Campos P (1984) Economía y energía en la dehesa extremeña. Instituto de Estudios Agrarios, Pesqueros y Alimentarios, MAPA, Madrid: 336

    Google Scholar 

  • Campos P (1997) Análisis de la rentabilidad económica de la dehesa. Situación. Serie de Estudios Regionales Extremadura, 111–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Campos P (1998) Contribución de los visitantes a la conservación de Monfragüe. Bienes públicos, mercado y gestión de los recursos naturales. In: Hernández CG (ed) La dehesa: aprovechamiento sostenible de los recursos naturales. Fundación Pedro Arce y Editorial Agrícola Española, Madrid, pp 241–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Campos P (1999) Alcornocales del suroeste ibérico. In: Marín F, Domingo J, Calzado A (eds), Los montes y su historia. Una perspectiva política, económica y social. Universidad de Huelva, Huelva:245–285

    Google Scholar 

  • Campos P (2002) Economía del uso múltiple de los Montes Propios de Jerez de la Frontera (1991–1993). Rev Esp Estud Agrosoc y Pesq 195:147–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Campos P, Caparrós A (2006) Social and private total Hicksian incomes of multiple use forests in Spain. Ecol Econ 57:545–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campos P, Mariscal P (2003) Preferencias de los propietarios e intervención pública: el caso del las dehesas de la comarca de Monfragüe. Invest Agrar Sist Recu For 12(3):87–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Campos P, Riera P (1996) Rentabilidad social de los bosques. Análisis aplicado a las dehesas y los montados ibéricos. Información Comercial Española 751:47–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Campos P, Andrés RD, Urzainqui E, Riera P (1996) Valor económico total de un espacio de interés natural. La dehesa del área de Monfragüe. In: Azqueta D, Pérez L (eds), Gestión de espacios naturales. La demanda de servicios recreativos. McGraw-Hill, Madrid, pp 192–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Campos P, Rodríguez Y, Caparrós A (2001) Towards the Dehesa total income accounting: theory and operative Monfragüe study cases. Investigación Agraria: Sistemas y Recursos Forestales Monográfico fuera de serie New forestlands economic accounting. Theories Appl 1:45–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Campos P, Bonnieux F, Caparrós A, Paoli JC (2007a) Measuring total sustainable incomes from multifunctional management of corsican maritime pine and Andalusian cork oak mediterranean forests. J Envi Plan Manag 50(1):65–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campos P, Caparrós A, Oviedo JL (2007b) Comparing payment-vehicle effects in contingent valuation studies for recreational use in two Spanish protected forests. J Leis Res 39(1):60–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Campos P, Daly H, Oviedo JL, Ovando P, Chebil A (2008) Accounting for single and aggregated forest incomes: application to public cork oak forests of Jerez in Spain and Iteimia in Tunisia. Ecol Econ 65:76–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campos P, Oviedo JL, Caparros A, Huntsinger L, Coelho I (2009) Contingent valuation of woodland-owner private amenities in Spain, Portugal, and California. Rangel Ecol Mgmt 62(3):240–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caparrós A, Campos P, Montero G (2003) An operative framework for total hicksian income measurement: application to a multiple use forest. Envi Res Econ 26:173–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caparrós A, Cerdá E, Ovando P, Campos P (2010) Carbon sequestration with reforestations and biodiversity-scenic values. Envi Res Econ 45:49–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caparrós A, Ovando P, Oviedo JL, Campos P (2011) Accounting for carbon in avoided degradation and reforestation programmes in Mediterranean forests. Envi Devel Econ 16(4):405–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CDF-FRAP [California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection-Fire and Resource Assessment Program, CalFire] (2003) Changing California: forest and range 2003 assessment. Sacramento, State of California Resources Agency, CA. http://www.frap.cdf.ca.gov/assessment2003. Accessed June 2012

  • Chan KMA, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwood EC, Daily GC (2006) Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol 4(11):1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaplin-Kramer R, Tuxen-Bettman K, Kremin C (2011) Supplying pollination services to California agriculture. Rangel 33(3):33–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheatum M, Casey F, Alvarez P, Parkhurst B (2011) Payments for ecosystem services: a California rancher perspective. Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University, Washington D.C

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, Ralph d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farberk S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Shahid Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Suttonkk P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond NK, Standiford RB, Passof PC, LeBlanc J (1987) Oak trees have varied effect on land values. Cal Ag 41:4–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Díaz M (2009) Biodiversity in the dehesa. In: Mosquera MR, Rigueiro A (eds) Agroforestry systems as a technique for sustainable land management. AECID, Madrid, pp 209–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Díaz M, Pulido FJ (1995) Wildlife-habitat relationships in the Spanish dehesa. In: McCracken DI, Bignal EM, Wenlock SE (eds) Farming on the edge: the nature of traditional farmland in Europe. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, pp 103–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Díaz M, Campos-Palacín P, Pulido FJ (1997) The Spanish dehesas: a diversity in land use and wildlife. (Chapter 7) In: Pain DJ, Pienkowski M (eds) Farming and birds in Europe: the common agricultural policy and its implications for bird conservation. Academic Press, London, p 436

    Google Scholar 

  • Díaz M, Baquero RA, Carricondo A, Fernández F, García J, Yela JL (2006) Bases ecológicas para la definición de las prácticas agrarias compatibles con las Directivas de Aves y de Hábitats. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente-Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo. http://www.mma.es/portal/secciones/biodiversidad/desarrollo_rural_paisaje/naturaleza_rural/estudios_bases_ecologicas.htm

  • DiDonato J (2007) Endangered amphibian research within grazed grasslands. Keeping landscapes working, University California Cooperative Extension Newsletter for Rangeland Managers Winter: 4–6. http://cesantaclara.ucdavis.edu/newsletterfiles/Keeping_Landscapes_Working10641.pdf

  • EEA [European Environment Agency] (2011) An experimental framework for ecosystem capital accounting in Europe. EEA. Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich PR, Ehrlich AH (1981) Extinction: the causes and consequences of the disappearance of species, 1st edn. Random House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich PR, Mooney HA (1983) Extinction, substitution, and ecosystem services. BioSci 33:248–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EEME [La Evaluación de los Ecosistemas del Milenio de España] (2011) La Evaluación de los Ecosistemas del Milenio de España. Síntesis de resultados. Fundación Biodiversidad. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, y Medio Rural y Marino

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferranto S, Huntsinger L, Getz C, Nakamura G, Stewart W, Drill S, Valachovic Y, DeLasaux M, Kelly M (2011) Forest and rangeland owners value land for natural amenities and as financial investment. Cal Ag 65(4):185–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferranto S, Huntsinger L, Stewart B, Getz C, Nakamura G, Kelly M (2012) Consider the source: the impact of media and authority in outreach to California’s forest and rangeland owners. J Environ Manage 97:131–140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Germano DJ, Rathbun GB, Saslaw LR (2010) Effects of grazing and invasive grasses on desert vertebrates in California. J Wildl Mgmt 9999:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosnell H, Robinson-Maness N, Charnley S (2011) Engaging ranchers in market-based approaches to climate change mitigation: opportunities, challenges, and policy implications. Rangel 64:20–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustankii JA, Squires RH (2000). Protecting the land: conservation easements past, present and future. Island Press, Washington D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2010) Proposal for a Common International Classification of Ecosystem Goods and Services (CICES) for Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting (V1). Fifth Meeting of the UN Committee of Experts on Environmental-Economic Accounting. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division, United Nations. New York, 23–25 June 2010. Available online

    Google Scholar 

  • Howitt R (1995) Positive mathematical programming. Am J Ag Econ 77:329–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huntsinger L, Fortmann LP (1990) California privately owned oak woodlands—owners, use, and management. J Range Man 43(2):147–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huntsinger L, Sulak A, Gwin L, Plieninger T (2004) Oak woodland ranchers in California and Spain: conservation and diversification. In: Schnabel S and Ferreira A (eds) Sustainability of Agrosilvopastoral Systems: Dehesas, Montados. Chapter 6. Adv Geoecology 37:309–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntsinger L, Johnson M, Stafford M, Fried J (2010) Hardwood rangeland landowners in California from 1985 to 2004: production, ecosystem services, and permanence. Rangel Ecol Manage 63(3):324–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joffre R, Ourcival J, Rambal S, Rocheteau A (2003) The key role of topsoil moisture on CO2 efflux from a mediterranean quercus ilex forest. Ann For Sci 60:519–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelt DA, Konno ES, Wilson JA (2005) Habitat management for the endangered Stephens’ kangaroo rat: the effect of mowing and grazing. J Wildl Manag 69(1):424–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kovacs K, Václavík T, Haight RG, Pang A, Cunniffe NJ, Gilligan CA, Meentemeyer RK (2011) Predicting the economic costs and property value losses attributed to sudden oak death damage in California (2010–2020). J Environ Manage 92:1292–1302

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kroeger T, Casey F, Alvarez P, Cheatum M, Tavassol L (2010) An economic analysis of the benefits of habitat conservation on California rangelands, a conservation economics white paper. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington D.C

    Google Scholar 

  • Krutilla JV (1967) Conservation reconsidered. Am Econ Rev 57(4):777–786

    Google Scholar 

  • Land Trust Alliance (2010) 2010 National land trust census report. A Look at voluntary land conservation in America. Available at http://www.landtrustalliance.org/land-trusts/land-trust-census/national-land-trust-census-2010/2010-final-report. Accessed Sep 2012

  • Li YL, Tenhunen J, Mirzaei H, Hussain MZ, Siebicke L, Foken T, Otieno D, Schmidt M, Ribeiro N, Aires L, Pio N, Banza J, Pereira J (2008) Assessment and up-scaling of CO2 exchange by patches of the herbaceous vegetation mosaic in a Portuguese cork oak woodland. Agric For Meteorol 148(8–9):1318–1331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liffmann RH, Huntsinger L, Forero LC (2000) To ranch or not to ranch: Home on the urban range? J Range Man 53(4):362–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomis J, Gonzalez-Caban A (1996) A willingness to pay function for protecting acres of spotted owl habitat from fire. Ecol Econ 25:315–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • López-Bote CJ (1998) Sustained utilization of the Iberian pig breed. Meat Sci 49:17–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin WE, Jeffries GL (1966) Relating ranch prices and grazing permit values to ranch productivity. J Farm Econ 48:233–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Merenlender AM, Huntsinger L, Guthey G, Fairfax SK (2004) Land trusts and conservation easements: Who is conserving what for whom? Conser Biol 18(1):65–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Montambault JR, Alavalapatti JRR (2005) Socioeconomic research in agroforestry: a decade in review. Agrofor Sys 65:151–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newburn D, Reed S, Berck P, Merenlender A (2005) Economics and land-use change in prioritizing private land conservation. Cons Biol 19(5):1411–1420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newburn DA, Berck P, Merenlender AM (2006) Habitat and open space at risk of land-use conversion: targeting strategies for land conservation. Am J Ag Econ 88(1):28–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuzum RC (2005) Report: Using livestock grazing as a resource management tool in California. Contra Costa Water District report. www.ccwater.com/files/LivestockGrazingFinal72005.pdf. Accessed Aug 2006

  • O’Geen AT, Dahlgren RA, Swarowsky A, Tate KW, Lewis DJ, Singer MJ (2010) Research connects soil hydrology and stream water chemistry in California oak woodlands. Cal Ag 64(2):78–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olewiler N (2004). The value of natural capital in settled areas of Canada. Ducks Unlimited Canada and the Nature Conservancy of Canada, Canada, p 36 http://www.ducks.ca/aboutduc/news/archives/pdf/ncapital.pdf

  • Oñate JJ, Malo JE, Suárez F, Peco B (1998) Regional and environmental aspects in the implementation of Spanish agri-environmental schemes. J Envir Mgmt 52:227–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ovando P, Campos P, Montero G (2007) Forestaciones con encina y alcornoque en el área de la dehesa en el marco del Reglamento (CE) 2080/92 (1993–2000). Rev Esp Estud Agrosoc y Pesq 214:173–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Ovando P, Campos P, Oviedo JL, Montero G (2010) Private net benefits from afforesting marginal crop and shrublands with cork oaks in Spain. For Sci 56:567–577

    Google Scholar 

  • Oviedo JL, Caparrós A, Campos P (2005) Valoración contingente del uso recreativo y de conservación de los visitantes del parque natural los Alcornocales. Rev Esp Estud Agrosoc Pesq 208:115–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Oviedo JL, Huntsinger L, Campos P, Caparrós A (2012) Income value of private amenities assessed in California oak woodlands. Cal Agric 66(3):91–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pereira JS, Mateus JA, Aires LM, Pita G, Pio C, David JS, Andrade V, Banza J, David TS, Paco TA, Rodrigues A (2007) Net ecosystem carbon exchange in three contrasting mediterranean ecosystems—the effect of drought. Biogeosci 4(5):791–802

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pistorius T, Schaich H, Winkel G, Plieninger T, Bieling C, Konold W, Volz K-R (2012) Lessons for REDDplus: a comparative analysis of the German discourse on forest functions and the global ecosystem services debate. For Pol Econ 18:4–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redford KH, Adams WM (2009) Payment for ecosystem services and the challenge of saving nature. Conser Biol 23(4):785–787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiner R, Craig A (2011) Conservation easements in California blue oak woodlands: testing the assumption of livestock grazing as a compatible use. Nat Areas J 31(4):408–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond OMW, Chen SK, Risk BB, Tecklin J, Beissinger SR (2010) California black rails depend on irrigation-fed wetlands in the Sierra Nevada foothills. Cal Ag 64(2):85–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rilla E, Sokolow AD (2000) California farmers and conservation easements: motivations, experiences and perceptions in three counties. In California Farmland and Open Space Policy Series: U of California Agricultural Issues Center

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Avilés P, Madueño C, Arenas JG, Antonio J (2001) Economía ambiental de los parques naturales de Córdoba. Universidad de Córdoba, Córdoba

    Google Scholar 

  • SCEP [Study of Critical Environmental Problems] (1970) Man’s impact on the global environment; assessment and recommendations for action. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz JL (1972) Sociocultural factors in financial management strategies of western livestock producers. Final report. Economic Research Service Farm Production Economics Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture. J., Washington, D.C. http://www.sbcouncil.org/Ranching-History-and-Trends. Accessed July 2012

  • Smith AH, Martin WE (1972) Socioeconomic behavior of cattle ranchers, with implications for rural community development in the west. Am J Ag Econ 54(2):217–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Standiford RB, Howitt RE (1992) Solving empirical bioeconomic models: a rangeland management application. Am J Ag Econ 74:421–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Standiford RB, Scott T (2001) Value of oak woodlands and open space on private property values in southern California. Inv Agrar Sist y Recurs, special issue 1:137–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Standiford RB, McCreary D, Gaertner S, Forero L (1996) Impact of firewood harvesting on hardwood rangelands varies with region. Cal Ag 50:7–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starrs PF (1997) Let the cowboy ride: cattle ranching in the American west. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Sulak A, Huntsinger L, Standiford R, Merenlender A, Fairfax SK (2004) A strategy for oak woodland conservation: the conservation easement in California. In: Schnabel S and Ferreira A (eds) Sustainability of Agrosilvopastoral Systems: Dehesas, Montados. Chapter 6. Adv Geoecology 37:353–364

    Google Scholar 

  • Talbert CB, Knight RL, Mitchell JE (2007) Private ranchlands and public land grazing in the southern rocky mountains. Rangel 29(3):5–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka JA, Brunson M, Torrell A (2011) Chapter 9: a social and economic assessment of rangeland conservation practices, pp 373–422. In: Briske DD (ed) Conservation benefits of rangeland practices: assessment, recommendations, and knowledge gaps. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Lawrence, Allen Press, KS, p 429

    Google Scholar 

  • The David and Lucile Packard Foundation (2011) Agriculture Survey. Conservation highlights. Available at: http://www.iaenvironment.org/documents/Packard%20Farm%20Bill%20Conservation%20FINAL.pdf. Accessed Aug 2012

  • Thompson RP, Noel JE, Cross SP (2001) Oak woodlands economics: a contingent valuation of conversion alternatives. In Proceedings of the fifth symposium on oak woodlands: Oaks in California’s changing landscape, San Diego, California, 22–25 Oct 2001

    Google Scholar 

  • Torell LA, Kincaid ME (1996) Public land policy and the market value of New Mexico ranches, 1979–94. J Range Man 49(3):270–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torell LA, Rimbey NR, Ramirez OA, McCollum DW (2005) Income earning potential versus consumptive amenities in determining ranchland values. J Agric Resour Econ 30(3):537–560

    Google Scholar 

  • USDA-NRCS-EQIP [United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service-Environmental Quality Incentives Program] (2011) EQIP 2011 contracts and funding data. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/programs/financial/eqip/?&cid=nrcs143_008294. Accessed Dec 2011

  • USDA-NRCS-WHIP [United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service-Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program] (2011) WHIP 2011 contracts and funding. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/programs/financial/whip/?&cid=stelprdb1041997. Accessed Dec 2011

  • Weiss SB (1999) Cars, cows, and checkerspot butterflies: nitrogen deposition and management of nutrient-poor grasslands for a threatened species. Conser Biol 13(6):1476–1486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood DV (2006) How to keep fires down in California scrub: chew it. The Christian Science Monitor, 18 Sept

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to two anonymous referees for constructive criticisms on an earlier draft.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Public Goods and Policies (IPP), Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Albasanz 26–28, 28037, Madrid, Spain

    Alejandro Caparrós, José L. Oviedo & Pablo Campos

  2. Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkely, Berkeley, 130 Mulford Hall MC 3110, CA 94720, USA

    Lynn Huntsinger

  3. Ecosystem Services Research Group, Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Jägerstr 22/23, Berlin, 10117, Germany

    Tobias Plieninger

Authors
  1. Alejandro Caparrós
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lynn Huntsinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. José L. Oviedo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tobias Plieninger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pablo Campos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alejandro Caparrós .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Institute of Public Goods and Policies, Spanish National Research Council, Albasanz 26-28, Madrid, 28037, Madrid, Spain

    Pablo Campos

  2. , Dept. Environ. Sci. Policy Manage., University of California at Berkeley, 130 Mulford Hall MC 3114, Berkeley, 94720, California, USA

    Lynn Huntsinger

  3. , Institute of Public Goods and Policies, Spanish National Research Council, Albasanz 26-28, Madrid, 28037, Madrid, Spain

    Jose Luis Oviedo Pro

  4. , Department of Geography, University of Nevada at Reno, MacKay Science Mail Stop, Reno, 89557, Nevada, USA

    Paul F Starrs

  5. , Biogeography and Global Change, Spanish National Research Council, Serrano 115 bis, Madrid, 28006, Madrid, Spain

    Mario Diaz

  6. , Dept of Environ Sci Policy and Manage, University of California at Berkeley, 130 Mulford Hall MC 3114, Berkeley, 94720, California, USA

    Richard B Standiford

  7. , Centro de Investigación Forestal, Inst Nacl Invest Tecnol Agrar Aliment, Ctra. de La Coruña, km 7.5, Madrid, 28040, Madrid, Spain

    Gregorio Montero

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Caparrós, A., Huntsinger, L., Oviedo, J.L., Plieninger, T., Campos, P. (2013). Economics of Ecosystem Services. In: Campos, P., et al. Mediterranean Oak Woodland Working Landscapes. Landscape Series, vol 16. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6707-2_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation